Two Year Sentence For 3D Print a Gun.

[Eyal]

I'm wondering if his confusion may have come from the prevalence and popularity of air-soft in Japan. They look true to life and someone not savvy to Japanese law may not realize there are in fact major differences, mechanically, between an airsoft gun and the originals they replicate.

I'm not very familiar with airsoft guns. Are they legal in Japan? What level of injury are they capable of? As far as I understand, airsoft guns are based on compressed air and the plastic projectile is much slower.

[patrickjp93]

The VAST majority of which are directly related to drugs and gangs, or known mental or emotional sickness. Still not an argument against your average person owning a gun. Don't forget every year 99.9998% of all legal gun owners hurt nobody with their guns.

Hurt nobody...yeah right. There is a nobility in killing a man with your bare hands. It was all up to skill at that point. A gun makes killing an old lady more of a joke than before. Why get within 50 feet with a bat when from 70 anyone should be able to hit a 1.5' wide target with a pistol/revolver?

You have a right to self-ownership? Hardly. If humans are inherently flawed, not given a choice to be born into the filthy planet this is, the very idea of free will and self-ownership goes out the window. You have no rights, only privileges you fight for and win either on your own or with others' help. Rights are the excuses of those dependent on law.

[cae]

The problem I see with your argument is "I disagree with this law, I shall ignore it". If you want this law to change, become a politician, or at least write a public letter to one.

Also, this law has been proven very effective in Japan, I'm not saying this should be everywhere, but it works very well in Japan. If you tried this in the US it will not work at all and will do more harm than good.

 

But that isn't my argument. I suggest following laws, even if you disagree with them. If the law is effective, what is it effective at? Forbidding gun ownership? But this man has clearly indicated that anyone with a 3D printer can create one. Stopping violence? Well no, because violence was used against this man who was not violent. Appeasing hoplophobes? Perhaps.. perhaps.

[Imaginaerum]

I'm wondering if his confusion may have come from the prevalence and popularity of air-soft in Japan. They look true to life and someone not savvy to Japanese law may not realize there are in fact major differences, mechanically, between an airsoft gun and the originals they replicate.

Do you mean ones with or without the blazing orange tip? It's kind of a dead giveaway that it isn't a real gun, savvy or not.

 

[tavirosu]

I'm not very familiar with airsoft guns. Are they legal in Japan? What level of injury are they capable of? As far as I understand, airsoft guns are based on compressed air and the plastic projectile is much slower.

 

I'm going to answer it for Europe. In most european countries the law states that any weapon or device that can fire (by any means, mechanical or compressed gas/air) a projectile over 220m/s are illegal, unless you get a permit for it. They are still non-leathal weapons, but due to the speed or the projectile can marks or cause serious injuries. Most gaming/regular airsoft guns are under it, pistols from 50-100, automatic weapons 100-180 m/s. To get over 220m/s you have to modify a regular one, so people do not do it.

 

You can apply for a non-leathal gun permit and it's a whole bunch of paperworks you need to fill, psyc evaluation and then you get a paper to be able to purchase a gun. Then with the papers in a time period you need to purchase your over 220m/s non-leathal weapon then go back and register it. After that it's legal and your permit is valid.

 

For lethal firearms, it depends on countries, but most of them do not give permits for regular citizens, only a few classes get it, the ones that need it for their job or for the rest as a hunting permit.

[HalGameGuru]

Hurt nobody...yeah right. There is a nobility in killing a man with your bare hands. It was all up to skill at that point. A gun makes killing an old lady more of a joke than before. Why get within 50 feet with a bat when from 70 anyone should be able to hit a 1.5' wide target with a pistol/revolver?

You have a right to self-ownership? Hardly. If humans are inherently flawed, not given a choice to be born into the filthy planet this is, the very idea of free will and self-ownership goes out the window. You have no rights, only privileges you fight for and win either on your own or with others' help. Rights are the excuses of those dependent on law.

 

If you denounce the right to self-ownership you have discounted every other right you profess and you have given legal and MORAL consent for anyone to do whatever they like to you. Slavery, assault, theft, etc. NONE of those are questionable if you do not own yourself. Rights are the basis for moral and legitimate interaction.

 

Yeah, the vast majority of people who own guns hurt NO ONE. and likely never will.

 

There is NO nobility in killing a man with your bare hands. Two men consenting to combat to gauge prowess in martial arts and abiding by their rules and coming to a victor is quite noble, it is a CONSENSUAL act. There is no skill with a 200 pound man dropping a rock on an infants head or raping and killing a woman who could do nothing to stop him. I honestly cannot wrap my head around someone who would make such an argument. Why give the little old lady any chance for defense, some big dude wants to kill her and take her stuff, let him, we'll just find him later and kill him in retribution. The little old lady doesn't matter? What about  you? I'm a pretty big dude, if I show up at your work and just start bludgeoning you at your desk this is a noble thing? NO! Your arguments fail any test of moral consistency and have made no attempt to reconcile their premises with moral and legitimate human interaction. You make no arguments, you spout platitudes and eschew the values of real people and their lives in favor of your preferences and desires. 

 

I will not sit idly by while someone tries to denounce the rights of the individual and the moral imperative to protect the individual in the face of the tyrannical state or ignorant mob. The immoral imposition does not lead to a better future, it dooms everyone to a life less free, more oppressive, and inhumane.

[HalGameGuru]

Do you mean ones with or without the blazing orange tip? It's kind of a dead giveaway that it isn't a real gun, savvy or not.

 

 

That depends on where you live, in many places any device that launches a projectile with compressed air is a weapon and cannot have the orange tip, much airsoft is a spring not air. But, I have seen many of both without orange tips. In america an air gun is a weapon just as truly as a firearm. Pellet guns have no orange tip and should be treated with just as much respect.

 

I have honestly never seen an airsoft gun, used in competition, that had an orange tip.

[cae]

Video of airsoft competition on page 10, I didn't see any orange tips, though some were.. curiously decorated.

[Eyal]

That depends on where you live, in many places any device that launches a projectile with compressed air is a weapon and cannot have the orange tip, much airsoft is a spring not air. But, I have seen many of both without orange tips. In america an air gun is a weapon just as truly as a firearm. Pellet guns have no orange tip and should be treated with just as much respect.

 

I have honestly never seen an airsoft gun, used in competition, that had an orange tip.

 

 

Video of airsoft competition on page 10, I didn't see any orange tips, though some were.. curiously decorated.

What's the orange tip used for?

[patrickjp93]

If you denounce the right to self-ownership you have discounted every other right you profess and you have given legal and MORAL consent for anyone to do whatever they like to you. Slavery, assault, theft, etc. NONE of those are questionable if you do not own yourself. Rights are the basis for moral and legitimate interaction.

Yeah, the vast majority of people who own guns hurt NO ONE. and likely never will.

There is NO nobility in killing a man with your bare hands. Two men consenting to combat to gauge prowess in martial arts and abiding by their rules and coming to a victor is quite noble, it is a CONSENSUAL act. There is no skill with a 200 pound man dropping a rock on an infants head or raping and killing a woman who could do nothing to stop him. I honestly cannot wrap my head around someone who would make such an argument. Why give the little old lady any chance for defense, some big dude wants to kill her and take her stuff, let him, we'll just find him later and kill him in retribution. The little old lady doesn't matter? What about you? I'm a pretty big dude, if I show up at your work and just start bludgeoning you at your desk this is a noble thing? NO! Your arguments fail any test of moral consistency and have made no attempt to reconcile their premises with moral and legitimate human interaction. You make no arguments, you spout platitudes and eschew the values of real people and their lives in favor of your preferences and desires.

I will not sit idly by while someone tries to denounce the rights of the individual and the moral imperative to protect the individual in the face of the tyrannical state or ignorant mob. The immoral imposition does not lead to a better future, it dooms everyone to a life less free, more oppressive, and inhumane.

You twisted my argument on nobility of hand to hand combat into rape?! Dude, straw man argument! Not valid. There is no true morality and no true rights. You have only what you do by your ability to dominate or cooperate with those around you.

If rights really meant justice then Israel as a nation wouldn't exist, and we'd have been exterminated in the 90s for our blatant violation of the sovereignty of many countries around the world. There is no such thing as a right. It's an idealism and nothing more. Everything is causality and conflict between the interests of corrupt human beings with little capacity beyond selfishness.

Your rights are nothing before the concept of power, for instance. You can attempt to defend yourself, but t unless you succeed, what is the point of claiming the right of self-defense if it can be so easily stripped away?

We develop laws to make ourselves feel better while with the other hand we only seek to find more ways of violating the supposed rights of others to further our own self images. Believing in rights is believing in lies.

You have power in various measures of skill and influence in many fields among many groups, and you have greed/self-interest. Beyond this there is nothing absolute apart from the mathematical constants that govern physics.

Your right to own a gun is not God-given. It's your idealism and ability to hold others at bay from stripping you of that ability for the supposed betterment of society. It's a privilege you enjoy, not a right which is inalienable. We find slavery unsavory and inhumane, but freedom is a privilege of those powerful enough to not be enslaved. We're all slaves to the needs of our bodies, the constraints of physics, the limits of human thought, etc.. What point is there in demanding your ideas be those to guide society when society is nothing more than a collection of greedy people who work together solely for the benefits of group protection and personal recognition? You can be shot in the back and never hear the bullet coming. Where is your right to life then? Inevitably guns only serve to assist criminals and military actions.

[cae]

What's the orange tip used for?

 

Designating them as toy weapons.

[HalGameGuru]

You twisted my argument on nobility of hand to hand combat into rape?! Dude, straw man argument! Not valid. There is no true morality and no true rights. You have only what you do by your ability to dominate or cooperate with those around you.

If rights really meant justice then Israel as a nation wouldn't exist, and we'd have been exterminated in the 90s for our blatant violation of the sovereignty of many countries around the world. There is no such thing as a right. It's an idealism and nothing more. Everything is causality and conflict between the interests of corrupt human beings with little capacity beyond selfishness.

Your rights are nothing before the concept of power, for instance. You can attempt to defend yourself, but t unless you succeed, what is the point of claiming the right of self-defense if it can be so easily stripped away?

We develop laws to make ourselves feel better while with the other hand we only seek to find more ways of violating the supposed rights of others to further our own self images. Believing in rights is believing in lies.

You have power in various measures of skill and influence in many fields among many groups, and you have greed/self-interest. Beyond this there is nothing absolute apart from the mathematical constants that govern physics.

Your right to own a gun is not God-given. It's your idealism and ability to hold others at bay from stripping you of that ability for the supposed betterment of society. It's a privilege you enjoy, not a right which is inalienable. We find slavery unsavory and inhumane, but freedom is a privilege of those powerful enough to not be enslaved. We're all slaves to the needs of our bodies, the constraints of physics, the limits of human thought, etc.. What point is there in demanding your ideas be those to guide society when society is nothing more than a collection of greedy people who work together solely for the benefits of group protection and personal recognition? You can be shot in the back and never hear the bullet coming. Where is your right to life then? Inevitably guns only serve to assist criminals and military actions.

 

You gave the argument there was nobility in war, and nobility in killing with your hands, you also discounted the right to self ownership the logical extension of that is to killing anyone with your hands, and with no self ownership there is no moral compunction against rape. She doesn't own HER body any more than her attacker does. Do you not realize what self ownership means?

 

Laws and rights have nothing to do with each other. The rights derived from self ownership are the rights innate in all individuals. You act, you are exercising self ownership when you do so, every animal does so, when we hunt an animal for food we do not discount its right when we know it will defend itself rather than die for our sustenance. Every animal exercises self-ownership as they will claim and defend territory, they will act to preserve themselves, defend their kin, and raise their young. 

 

Your right to self defense cannot be stripped away, your right to self defense merely resolves your moral/immoral spectrum of interaction, it is not moral to victimize someone, it is moral to defend yourself from victimization. Whatever you do to oppress or victimize someone does nothing to remove their rights, it is merely an assault upon their rights. 

 

The might makes right argument relies on self ownership on the one hand and then ignores it on the other, the aggressor acting is exercising self ownership but the idea that his self-ownership in acting somehow trumps the self-ownership of the person he is aggressing against is the half-thought out philosophy of someone who wants to victimize people. That argument will lead to people with MY way of thinking winning out as voluntary interaction and mutual defense will eventually destroy those who would oppress and prey upon people. People with respect for rights beat out people without respect for rights because the only people the respecters have to fear is non-respecters, a non-respecter has to fear everyone. I sure hope, after spouting these arguments, you aren't going to go running to the cops when the stronger man mugs you and takes all your stuff... cuz you know since he was stronger than you it was really his, i guess.

[suicidalfranco]

Why doesn't the U.S. Just do what we did here in Italy, one referendum and let the people directly decide with a yes or no if the people should be allowed to freely carry a gun. And just to save time toss in abortion and gay marriage and call it day.

[HalGameGuru]

Why doesn't the U.S. Just do what we did here in Italy, one referendum and let the people directly decide with a yes or no if the people should be allowed to freely carry a gun. And just to save time toss in abortion and gay marriage and call it day.

 

American's don't really trust mob rule. For good reason.

 

But, aside from that, you are basically saying, (using Italy) We should let Rome have a voice in what the city of Naples does... Would you want the larger numbers in one city to be able to completely overrule the numbers in another and suddenly all the tax money from your town is going to another to subsidize their way of life and you are having to scrape by taking your garbage to the landfill yourself, and repaving the streets on your weekends? Sweeping legislation causes headaches like that, and putting such things to mob rule will always wind up having the larger group prey upon the smaller group.

 

America is a federation of 50 nations, the idea that America is one hegemonic state is a newer idea and one that will eventually fall away. I doubt many things like that would fly even on the state level. People just don't want local issues decided by people who aren't local.

[HalGameGuru]

Humans are not "inherently flawed" humans are resilient, caring, intelligent, and rational beings. A person's history or upbringing can cause their rational subjective response to differ from yours, and what they care about may differ from you, and we all have different abilities and capabilities, but the person in their natural state is an industrious, inquisitive, and positive creature. The fact we didn't roll over and die after the first famine, didn't self-destruct with the first warlord, and haven't yet scorched ourselves off the earth with atomics is proof of our greater positivity than negativity. 

[suicidalfranco]

American's don't really trust mob rule. For good reason.

But, aside from that, you are basically saying, (using Italy) We should let Rome have a voice in what the city of Naples does... Would you want the larger numbers in one city to be able to completely overrule the numbers in another and suddenly all the tax money from your town is going to another to subsidize their way of life and you are having to scrape by taking your garbage to the landfill yourself, and repaving the streets on your weekends? Sweeping legislation causes headaches like that, and putting such things to mob rule will always wind up having the larger group prey upon the smaller group.

America is a federation of 50 nations, the idea that America is one hegemonic state is a newer idea and one that will eventually fall away. I doubt many things like that would fly even on the state level. People just don't want local issues decided by people who aren't local.

The result of our referendum was 84% for the no, voters consisted of 79% of the Italian population; and just for your information Naples as way more citizens than Rome, heck the south Italy in general is more populated than the north and center Italy. The referendum was almost 30 years ago and no one complains about the decision, so we must have done something right.

[pdv789]

Look at it this way peeps. I am a citizen of the us, I defend this freedom and love the fact that I am, at this moment, allowed to own just about any weapon at this point. I am in the military, I am putting my life on the line everyday. I may not agree 100% with what is going on but there are things I value enough to lay my life on the line. I do so to make sure that the people I deem dangerous to my family for their religious preference do not kill my family because they believe in Jesus or god or whatever they believe in or their sexual preference. I defend this country because i was raised to defend what i thought is right, even if it means laying my life on the line.I think that everyone has the right to scrap metal. Now whether that scrap metal is in the shape of a semi truck or a gun or a spoon should be left up to the individual to own. A semi truck can be as deadly if not more deadly than a gun. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, just as ones self eating causes them to be fat not spoons. If you were to ban every instrument that people use to kill others than you would be left banning spoons and forks and other every day instruments to the point that you would need a license to own a damn blanket. There was a news article of a wife killing her boyfriend with a iPod. I don't see iPods being the topic of bans everywhere. Or the fact that spoons make people fat. How people are raised and their culture have a lot to do with crime. If someone wants to kill another badly enough they will find another way. Strangulation is just as deadly as a bullet to the heart.  Vehicles are just as deadly as guns.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10761964/US-woman-who-stabbed-boyfriend-to-death-with-stiletto-heel-gets-life-in-prison.html

 

Should Stilettos be banned???

 

http://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=559747

Ipod incident

 

Gun violence is a widely debated issue in the United States. Gun-related violence is most common in poor urban areas and frequently associated with gang violence, often involving male juveniles or young adult males.^[1][2]

Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths^[3] and the frequency of these events has steadily declined since the 1990s.

 

According to wikipedia, a source open to billions of people to edit, as long as you have a factual source you can update this statement yet the mass majority can reach this statement,

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs310/en/

 

let's ban Ischemic heart disease because by the logic in this forum everyone will all of the sudden stop having Ischemic heart disease. Come on people, having a population that used to have a wide acceptance of guns and then banning them and expecting death rates to do down is just fucking ignorance. When people look to go on a killing spree it doesn't matter if they have a gun or a god damn car. You CAN  NOT compare one country to another and expect those figures to be accurate at all. ONE country was raised on way and the other the other way.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/194/total_number_of_gun_deaths

 

Ban cars!!! They have been a much larger cause of death than guns!!! Hell, let's ban all cars so that no one can go on a killing spree!!!! *by the logic of this thread*

[TheProfosist]

I can't wait until criminals get in on this kind of shit and people realize that gun laws can't protect you. I wonder how many innocents will die in "gun free zones" before people realize that you have to protect yourself.

A shame that common sense is viewed as insanity these days. And anyone who quotes me on this topic, don't expect me to respond, I'm not getting into this argument for the trillionth time and devolving the thread.

Having a gun to fight a potential other gun makes sense but what makes more sense is to never have that other gun be an issue.

Japan isn't a "gun free zone" they have strict regulations on weapons and firearms. Heck even the police don't have immediate access to firearms. Unsurprisingly this has actually work out for the better. Japan has many other problems though just like any country, many quite severe, none of which do I really have enough knowledge about to discuss.

Sadly the above won't work in the US due to how our society works. Kinda like how in 98% of the country we have no real mass transport thus making cars a necessity rather than something extra.

[TheProfosist]

Millions of law abiding gun owners would disagree.

And the thousands of non law abiding ones ruin it for them.

[TheProfosist]

-snip-

EDIT: Nope, Japan is just a crazy safe place to live... pretty impressive. Still wouldn't give up my guns to live there, I feel 100% safe where I live anyways (even without my guns). The only downside is the suicide rate is twice as high compared to the US, must be something people don't like over there...

Yep. That's what happens when you value you value domestic stuff way way higher than international.

This does create other issues though especially with the was some of its been handled from what I've seen. But hey every country has their political issues theirs are just rather big as of recent. If you look around the world that tends to be the case in many places at the moment though.

That would be due to social stress. They are taught to greatly care what society thinks and meet what they think is society's expectation on them. This is also actually a big reason for the decline in birth's. A big thing behind this in actually lack of relationships as the younger generation is disinterested. There are other factors as well just as in anything.

A friend had a Japanese exchange student stay at their house. I forget exactly what she told him but when he asked about relationships and that sort of thing she said something to the effect of she doesn't really think about it. He found this surprising for a girl finishing high school. I really didn't but I forgot my exact answer as to why though.

[hawaiims]

Hey come on, guns have good uses too. Like hunting for example.

3d printing a gun in the US is illegal too because it is undetectable by metal detectors

[Shroomster]

@hawaiims

I was not talking about 3d printed ones. Could someone please for once read the damn thing I was quoting?

[TheProfosist]

coming from Japan, this isn't surprising

for those that aren't familiar, Japan is EXTREMELY gun-phobic

The whole Airsoft market practically started in Japan because it was the only way for people to enjoy firearms legally - and even those are HEAVILY restricted

an airsoft gun shooting over 300 feet per second is considered a firearm in Japan - to put that in perspective, a mere 9mm pistol shoots around 1200fps (can vary with ammunition, both above and below). Japan is scared of a pistol shooting PLASTIC at ONE FOURTH the speed of a real firearm

Oh thing I can think of is that once you get into something you always want something bigger better and nicer. This kinda completely curbs that so you never get the urge?

[hawaiims]

@hawaiims

I was not talking about 3d printed ones. Could someone please for once read the damn thing I was quoting?

Yes, and if you did your research you would know that there is such a thing as hunting licenses in Japan. It of course limits the type of gun you are allowed to own and you have to have background checks, a mandatory gun safety class and need to renew it quite often.

 

Guns aren't completely banned in Japan, they're just not allowed for any use other than hunting and for the very few professionals who do pistol shooting etc.. as a sport. 

 

But ask any Japanese person if they would want to have guns legalized for any use and I can guarantee you almost all of them would be against it. When you have no guns, there is no reason to have a gun.

 

That's sort of the problem in the US, people feel they need to have guns because others have guns so it becomes a game of cat and mouse. But when you have next to 0 there is no reason for that. 

[TheProfosist]

I'd challenge anyone here to name where a law has prevented a crime from occurring.

Laws are a way for society to legitimize punishing those who violate said laws, they prevent nothing.

I'm trying to point out that mocking someones argument by calling it "stupid" isn't an argument at all.

^this, 1000 times this.

If you saying a law completely irradicate the crime it's trying to prevent. Then no that will never happen. However there are plenty of laws that have substantially reduced the number of crimes its trying to prevent.

Without law there really wouldn't be order. Think of laws are rules that general society lives by. The punishment is a deterrent to those who think about breaking such rules. I'm not saying all laws are good and correct but surprisingly people need order.